On 18/10-2009 01:32 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thomas Olsen posted on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:14:36 +0200 as excerpted:
> > On 17/10-2009 14:38 Anne Wilson <cannewilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Saturday 17 October 2009 11:36:57 Thomas Olsen wrote:
> >> > I started out customizing it to act and look like KDE3 but now I have
> >> > a heavily customized workplace which serves my needs. The strength
> >> > and weakness of KDE. I prefer the strength!
> >> >
> >> > (and I know the developers are trying to limit the options of
> >> > customization but users demand it - it's a sharp edge to walk on)
> >>
> >> The funny thing is that in the past the criticism was often that it had
> >> just too many options - IOW was too configurable. My own feeling has
> >> that KDE has always appealed to individualists, who want maximum
> >> possibilities ;-)
> >
> > My sentiment too, but I haven't really much to compare with bc I've used
> > KDE exclusively since about 3 months after Matthias Ettrich started the
> > project :-) '96-'97?
>
> One of my feeds recently featured a "Two elephants" article, the thesis
> of which was that significant new functionality is one "elephant", while
> existing users are another, and the problem becomes one of trying to fit
> them both in the same room at the same time, without forcing the old one
> out in ordered to accommodate the new one. The author then proposed
> three methods of trying to do this, including building a bigger room to
> hold two elephants and trying to move them both in. KDE was the example
> here, but the danger is that the original users won't like their new home
> and will refuse to make the move, which is he said the problem KDE4 had,
> that it's just now beginning to overcome.
>
> ... Unfortunately it seems Google hasn't picked up the piece yet (or my
> googlefoo is bad today) as I don't find it, or I'd post the link.
>
> But this the configurability is definitely one of the elements of old kde
> that the old "elephant" enjoyed, in part because unlike the biggest
> alternative, gnome, kde wasn't apologetic about making things
> configurable. As a result, those that wanted to keep things simple and
> have the developers choose sufficient defaults so it "just worked" tended
> to gravitate toward gnome or something else, while those who seldom found
> defaults that met their needs and weren't shy about changing them, and
> demanding that the knobs and levers be available TO change them,
> gravitated toward kde.
>
> It's no secret, therefore, that most of the long-time kde users will NOT
> be happy if they find configuration options disappearing on them, or even
> if new features arrive without what they consider an appropriate level of
> knobs and levers available to configure them. Should they get mad about
> it, that elephant will simply pickup and leave...
It's a nice analogy but I'm scared to be caught in the never ending discussion
of pro/con configurability (think my spelling is wrong). I guess I'm an old
elephant but I respect the decisions of the developers. They give me a lot of
space for customizing and scripting and when I'm not satisfied with it I can go
the C++ way :-)
And sometimes I'm just lazy and want it to work out-of-the-box so an
ambivalent elephant is probably the best description :-D
--
Best Regards / Med venlig hilsen
Thomas Olsen
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
